On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> > wrote: > >> > >> CoE: The Proposal Pool is not empty. I think it still contains my > >> "Police Power" proposal. > > > > > > Rejected. It is the opinion of the Office of the Promotor that an > > error in a non-substantive aspect of a proposal doesn’t invalidate > > that proposal, and merely requires that it be corrected. > > It was wrong in one of the essential parameters, right? > > I think this is really contradictory to your stance on creating > proposals in the first place - you're stating that a Proposer has > to get it right (e.g. for AI) or the whole thing fails. But the > Promotor, who is doing an official job that actually performs the > duty is allowed to get it wrong, and it still succeeds? Awfully > convenient on the Promotor but not good for accurate voting. > > That seems 100% backwards in my mind but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > I vote based on essential parameters (AI in particular but the > rules include all of them). If you claim to distribute a > proposal with the wrong essential parameters, you're claiming > that you distributed a proposal that doesn't actually exist. > > -G. >
You may have a point. It isn’t actually significantly easier for me to correct the distribution than redistribute it; my theory has historically been that for some errors, such as errors in coauthor, the Agoran public would find me doing that much more annoying than useful. That said, my reasoning is entirely based on convenience for the public, rather than the interests of the game. So, IMO, if this doesn’t work, it probably makes sense to make it so it does work. What are your thoughts on the best way to resolve the situation? -Aris
